Summary
The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, reviewed the dismissal of Marsha J. Martin’s negligence claim against Fifth Third Bank arising from an alleged fraudulent wire transfer by a bank customer. The court held that Illinois law does not categorically bar a noncustomer from pursuing a negligence claim against a bank and that duty must be analyzed under the Illinois Supreme Court’s four-factor framework. The court reversed the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for leave to file a second amended complaint, while declining to decide the UCC article 4A preemption and Moorman doctrine issues.
Holdings
- Illinois law does not adopt a categorical rule that a bank owes no duty of care to a noncustomer. The applicable analysis is the Illinois Supreme Court's general four-factor duty analysis.
- Martin's complaint did not adequately plead the facts necessary to establish the foreseeability, likelihood, burden, and consequences elements of duty, but it was possible that she could state a viable claim through more specific allegations. The dismissal with prejudice was therefore improper.
- The appellate court declined to decide whether article 4A preempts Martin's negligence claim because the circuit court did not rule on that issue.
- The appellate court declined to decide whether the Moorman economic-loss doctrine barred Martin's negligence claim because the circuit court did not rule on that issue.
Questions Presented
- Whether Illinois law categorically bars a noncustomer from asserting a negligence claim against a bank.
- Whether Martin's amended complaint sufficiently alleged that Fifth Third owed her a duty of care under Illinois's four-factor duty analysis.
- Whether the appellate court should decide whether UCC article 4A preempts Martin's negligence claim when the circuit court did not rule on preemption.
- Whether the appellate court should decide the applicability of the Moorman economic-loss doctrine when the circuit court did not rule on that issue.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (27)
- Conder v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 384 F.3d 397, 400 (7th Cir. 2004)(not binding)
- Zachman v. Citibank, N.A., 183 F. Supp. 3d 922, 924 (N.D. Ill. 2016)(not binding)
- Thompson v. Capital One Bank, Inc., 375 F. Supp. 2d 681, 683 (N.D. Ill. 2005)(not binding)
- Reichert v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners of Collinsville, 388 Ill. App. 3d 834, 845 (2009)(followed)
- People v. Kokoraleis, 132 Ill. 2d 235, 293-94 (1989)(followed)
- Praither v. Northbrook Bank & Trust Co., 2021 IL App (1st) 201192, ¶ 21(criticized)
- Bogenberger v. Pi Kappa Alpha Corp., 2018 IL 120951, ¶¶ 21-22, 46(followed)
- Quiroz v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2022 IL 127603, ¶ 13(followed)
- Carney v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2016 IL 118984, ¶ 27(followed)
- Bruns v. City of Centralia, 2014 IL 116998, ¶¶ 13-14, 33, 36(followed)
Showing top 10 of 27.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.